Book Title: Indian Logic Part 02
Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Previous | Next

Page 37
________________ 26 INDIAN LOGIC definition in question must after all contain a noun to which must be attributed the so many adjectives here inserted.53 The submission as such is trivial but it has occasioned an important discussion as to what constitutes cognition and what does not. Even so, it would have been more straightforward for Jayanta to simply say that the word 'jñāna' occurring in the definition in question means this and does not mean that. (3) ** Jayanta next considers the significance of the word 'avyapadesya (=non-verbal)' occurring in the proposed definition of perception. The precise import of the word is obscure but this very circumstance led to a lively controversy as to what it means ; this controversy Jayanta reports in considerable details and is truly revealing in its own manner. The divergent views cited in this connection are four in all, the first attributed to a body of persons called 'old Naiyāyikas', the second to one called 'Acāryas', the third to one called 'Vyākhyātr-cum-Pravaras', the fourth to no one in particular. All these views commonly maintain that the word 'avyapadesya (=non-verbal)' occurring here is aimed at eliminating from the purview of the proposed definition something that is born of sense-object contact and is yet somehow verbal; but as to what this something is they differ widely. The precise points of difference are in brief as follows: (1) The upholders of the first view note that a perceptual cognition born of sense-object contact is often given the designation 'cognition of colour', 'cognition of taste' or the like. And it is their contention that this perceptual cognition as thus verbally designated is what the word 'non-verbal' seeks to eliminate from the purview of the proposed definition. (2) The upholders of the second view note that when a thing is shown to a novice and its name told the resulting cognition, even if born of sense-object contact, is of the nature of verbal testimony. And it is their contention that this cognition is what the word 'non-verbal seeks to eliminate from the purview of the proposed definition. (3) The upholders of the third view note that sense-object contact immediately produces a cognition which involves no employment of words but that this cognition is followed by another one which does involve employment of words. And it is their contention that this latter cognition is what the word 'non-verbal' seeks to eliminate from the purview of the proposed definition.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236